Hi Jan
> On 24 Sep 2021, at 8:44 am, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 22.09.2021 13:35, Rahul Singh wrote:
>> @@ -623,7 +624,7 @@ int arch_sanitise_domain_config(struct
>> xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
>> unsigned int max_vcpus;
>>
>> /* HVM and HAP must be set. IOMMU may or may not be */
>> - if ( (config->flags & ~XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu) !=
>> + if ( (config->flags & ~XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu & ~XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpci) !=
>> (XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap) )
>> {
>> dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "Unsupported configuration %#x\n",
>
> While you accept the new flag here and ...
>
>> --- a/xen/common/domain.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
>> @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ static int sanitise_domain_config(struct
>> xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
>> ~(XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap |
>> XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_s3_integrity | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_oos_off |
>> XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu |
>> - XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt) )
>> + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpci) )
>> {
>> dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "Unknown CDF flags %#x\n", config->flags);
>> return -EINVAL;
>
> ... here, you need to somehow reject it on x86, until DomU support
> there gets added (unless I have misunderstood things and you're
> aiming at enabing that support for x86 here at the same time). I
> cannot spot existing code which would take care of such a newly
> added flag.
Ok. I will reject the flag in x86 arch_sanitise_domain_config().
>
>
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/pci.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/pci.h
>> @@ -6,8 +6,6 @@
>> #define CF8_ADDR_HI(cf8) ( ((cf8) & 0x0f000000) >> 16)
>> #define CF8_ENABLED(cf8) (!!((cf8) & 0x80000000))
>>
>> -#define MMCFG_BDF(addr) ( ((addr) & 0x0ffff000) >> 12)
>
> While there was a reason for the padding blank after the first
> opening parentheses here, ...
>
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/pci.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/pci.h
>> @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@
>> #define PCI_SBDF3(s,b,df) \
>> ((pci_sbdf_t){ .sbdf = (((s) & 0xffff) << 16) | PCI_BDF2(b, df) })
>>
>> +#define MMCFG_BDF(addr) ( ((addr) & 0x0ffff000) >> 12)
>
> ... that blank ends up bogus here.
Ack . I will remove the extra blank in next version.
Regards,
Rahul
>
> Jan
>
